Selling no roster limitations

[Slugs3511]

Need positives for no roster limitations vs. negatives toward roster limitations.... Many feel wothout roster limitations the pool will be too shallow for competitiveness.... I disagree but am having a hard time convincing most other teams

I play in leagues with 20 rounds and no limits and love it!

[Junkyard]

Compromise. Roster limits on draft day, and then lifted after Week 1.

 

3 QB

5 RB

6 WR

2 TE

2 K

2 DST

[stevegrab]

Simple no roster limits mean you decide whether you want to carry extra K, D, etc or that sleeper at another position. Or hold on to that guy who is injured that you want to stash for later or next year.

 

Good luck convincing others, people who worry about the free agent pool being void of talented players may not believe it won't happen if you remove the limits.

 

We have 18 man roster, start 9, no roster limits and many teams only have a single K/D, or even TE, one team has just 1 QB (Brees). RBs range from 4-7 (start 2), WR range from 5-8 (start 3).

[Big Country]

I'd simply tell them that you are not a bunch of 4th grade girls, so build a roster how you see fit and play the game like grown adults.

 

No positional limits let's owners build teams how they see fit. If they are weak at RB, they can carry an extra player there for more depth/options and if they are strong at WR, they could afford to carry less at that position. If anything, no positional limits promotes more competitiveness across the teams as it is easier for owners to address their weaknesses, it promotes trading as you don;t have to try match positions, so now you could trade a WR for an RB instead of having to package up like for like positions.

[Delicious_bass]

I'd simply tell them that you are not a bunch of 4th grade girls, so build a roster how you see fit and play the game like grown adults.

 

No positional limits let's owners build teams how they see fit. If they are weak at RB, they can carry an extra player there for more depth/options and if they are strong at WR, they could afford to carry less at that position. If anything, no positional limits promotes more competitiveness across the teams as it is easier for owners to address their weaknesses, it promotes trading as you don;t have to try match positions, so now you could trade a WR for an RB instead of having to package up like for like positions.

 

well said

[Delicious_bass]

Compromise. Roster limits on draft day, and then lifted after Week 1.

 

3 QB

5 RB

6 WR

2 TE

2 K

2 DST

 

this doesn't make sense to me. Either have positional limits (which I absolutely disagree with) or have no limits from go. One or the other but not a mix. Why would you force anyone to draft a player at a position when they have no desire nor intent to carry that player going forward?

[FatalFact]

I am extremely for roster limitations. I think promote competition among all teams (even the losing teams) because they can never use lack of talent on the waiver wire as an excuse. We put in a couple of player spots for ir to combat injuries and game on

[Delicious_bass]

I am extremely for roster limitations. I think promote competition among all teams (even the losing teams) because they can never use lack of talent on the waiver wire as an excuse. We put in a couple of player spots for ir to combat injuries and game on

 

Because it limits how much a savvy owner can "out play" the other owners because it takes much of the skill of identifying the good players (that are not blatantly obvious) out of it.

[stevegrab]

Roster limits promote competition? Not likely.

 

As BC said, they kill trading. Many trades in our league would not happen with roster limits. A few weeks ago I traded Hauschka and a future draft pick (keeper league) for Ivory. If we had roster limits I would not have done that, since I need to carry 2 K anyway so may as well just keep the two I had. Or if I did trade I'd immediately have to drop another RB and add a kicker.

 

People who think they are good have usually not played in a league without them. Or they just like more structure or control over the rosters.

[Big Country]

I am extremely for roster limitations. I think promote competition among all teams (even the losing teams) because they can never use lack of talent on the waiver wire as an excuse. We put in a couple of player spots for ir to combat injuries and game on

 

 

Roster limitations don't have a lot to do with the waiver wire realistically, roster size does.

 

Roster position limitations restrict trading and overall activity, as all moves have to essentially be like for like. The whole point of most transactions is being able to take from a position of strength to address a position of weakness. If you must maintain a set number of players from a position at all times, you essentially kill this aspect of the game.

 

Depth of the waiver pool is based on roster size and number of teams. Most of these people that complain about the waiver pool depth want to be able to pick up and plug in a high level starter all season long. If your waiver pool is too deep, then there is no trading. Granted, if it is too shallow, then the only way to address shortcomings is through trade, but even in my larger leagues with fairly deep rosters (ie FFPC - 12 teams, 20 man rosters and even in 16 teamers) there is never a lack of viable options in the free agent pool. No, you aren;t likely to regularly be able to find a starting NFL RB on the waiver pool (you're not likely to see that in small leagues either), but it is often what the people that complain about waiver depth want to have happen. Make rosters too shallow and owners can't even take a chance on flyers to try to stash and end up having to cut high caliber players to cover a bye week.

 

Mix position limits and shallow rosters and you get a real NFL - No Fun League

[HowboutthemCowboys]

I'd simply tell them that you are not a bunch of 4th grade girls, so build a roster how you see fit and play the game like grown adults.

 

 

 

this is the correct answer IMO

[BA Baracus]

Roster limits are sort of like communism. I dont care if you are interested in repairing machines, this ticket says that you will farm corn.

 

I dont care if you want to go WR early and then stock up on RBs. These stupid rules say that you must own 6 WRs.

[slambo]

By majority vote we got rid of roster limitations several seasons ago in my local. Now, even the naysayers prefer it. Only requirement is to draft a starting lineup. (10 team redraft, 15 spots, QB,2RB,2WR,TE, WR/RB/TE K D/ST)

We also reduced total roster size down to 15 from 18, makes for a well stocked WW.